Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#heading=h.xufozeaoexkx

please post the URL to the wiki of the meeting to chat

https://community.icann.org/x/xgGNC

thanks

Thanks Zak

That wording tweak seems to make sense

nothing to add

Are "mechanisms" the same thing a "contractual provisions"? I don't think it is.

new

Agree that this is about provider accountability not CPs accountability

What are the mechanisms? I think Maxim may be conflating contractual provisions with mechanisms.

or procedures

better than policies

mechanism - compliant sent to icann complaint

everything else is in RA, RAA, URS documents (3 items)

I mean to ICANN Compliance dept

we might need some text describing this

feelings are not facts

so we can not follow it

@Phil - I believe so

Otherwise, the recommendation would be a nullity.

maybe it has to

I understand Maxim's position, but I don't think a single WG member should have a veto over.

the work of the WG and the public comment

we do not see facts of what feelings are based on

+1 Zak

text clearly saying that the mechanism required for CPH

Agree Paul

Apologies for joining late, had a prior call run 30 minutes over time

agree Paul, this recommendation has been well supported throughout process

subgroup is not the whole WG

@Maxim, whole WG agreed the proosed recommendation that went out to public comment

I think Phil's idea about IRT text is a good one, not in the rec but in the explanation to caution about creating a new mechanism whare one already exists

+1 David

please add minority opinion

please set it as an action item for me

Noted Maxim

Noting that while the recommendation may seem elementary, it responded to a real problem that the WG uncovered

Nothing to add

highlighted on screen

PCRT Row #25: It would be ideal for ICANN to maintain a single source of accurate and up-to-date contact information that registries, registrars and URS providers can check against.

speaking about #4 , it was not only my opinion, public comment of RySG did not support it, so it is Registries, not just a member of RPM WG

INTA’s proposed rewording: “The Working Group recommends that the ICANN org, Registries, Registrars, and URS Providers take appropriate steps to ensure that each other’s contact details are up to date in order to effectively fulfill the notice requirements set forth in the URS Procedure para 4.”

David hand’s up

hand up

INTA typically makes proposals based on experience.

agree with David that the INTA tweak seems beneficial

David +1

I did reach out, thanks Zak

got no responses

certificate of a recognized Certificate Authority does not cost that much

don't care does not mean it is not a problem

+1 Zak

@Zak -- thank you.

INTA supports as well.

I support the INTA comment or as implementation guidance as Mary notes

Some implementation notes may also be in the form of clarifying text in the contextual section (as Phil is saying, I believe).

You are very welcome.

And of course you will be able to review the final text of any additional language or implementation guidance that this table is converted into for the Final Report. Thank you Phil and all!

That’s correct

Yay!!

Thanks Phil, staff, and all

Thanks Phil, bye all

Next ones: URS Rec #6 & Q#4, Rec #7, Rec #8 & Q#5

Thanks, Phil

@Staff - have we set times up yet for the small groups?

I don't recall seeing invites or emails.

@Paul, we had suggested the groups start with the Google Docs that were created and discuss via email.

We can certainly arrange a call if you think it’s needed, of course.

@Mary - I think that would make sense.

Sorry, I might have missed this, but there's also the final GIs wording

We will recirculate the Google Doc links to the small group.

Thanks Mary. Can you do a Doodle as well for a call mid next week?

@Rebecca - yes staff will circulate the final proposed text for discussion via the list.

thanks mary

bye all

Thanks